[131005] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Oct 19 05:26:26 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <65CE49EB-1CD4-4B9F-A516-4AC14E722848@virtualized.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 02:19:48 -0700
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Cc: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>,
North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:25 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> RS,
>=20
> On Oct 18, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>> If we were to give a /48 to every human on the face of the planet, we
>> would use about .000025 of the total available IPv6 address space.
>=20
> Sure. I once did the math that suggested that even if you multiplied =
the current IPv4 consumption rate by 1000 and applied that consumption =
rate to IPv6 /48s, the 1/8th of the IPv6 address space used for global =
unicast would last over 100 years.
>=20
> The problem is that allocation policy depends on who shows up at RIR =
meetings. Marshall has pointed out the (potential) implications of that =
policy with respect to 6rd. My math didn't take 6rd into account. =20
>=20
> Simply, there is no finite resource that people can't figure out a way =
to waste in an insane fashion. Since IPv6 is a finite resource, I =
personally think it makes sense for folks to be reasonably conservative =
in assignment to customers.
>=20
> Regards,
> -drc
>=20
Agreed.
/48 is reasonably conservative in native IPv6 deployments.
6rd cannot be done in a reasonably conservative fashion, so, we're kind =
of stuck with giving /24s to ISPs to give /56s to their customers and =
living with the consequences.
Owen
